Section 3 - Lessons Learnt From Historical Equipment Failure
description
Transcript of Section 3 - Lessons Learnt From Historical Equipment Failure
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Lesson learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Session Agenda
• Fatigue and fracture case studies• Other failure mechanism case studies• Statistic on Oil and Gas failure rates
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Failure Case Studies
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Kings Bridge
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Fawley Storage Tank
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
MV Kurdistan Tanker
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Origin of failure in Kurdistan Tanker
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Alexander L. Kielland Platform
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Fatigue cracking in brace D6 of Alexander L. Kielland Platform
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Cockenzie Boiler Drum
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Union Oil Amine Absorber Tower
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Summary of fatigue and fracture case studies
Union Oil
Cockenzie
Keilland
Kurdistan
Fawley
Kings Bridge
John Thompson
Subcritical growth
FabricationServiceTestResidualSecondary member
Main structure
Temp. significant
Low toughness
DefectRepairWeldStressInitiation siteCase
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Corrosion failure• A section of a 30 inch
oil transit pipe line burst in an oilfield
• 10,000 to 15,000 barrels of oil leaked over a large area of a gathering station
• A subsequent fire and explosion occurred
• Source of leak a 830mm long split in the 6 o’clock position
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Corrosion failure
View of resulting damage from explosion and fireView of resulting damage from explosion and fire
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Corrosion failure
Burst pipe sample set to Burst pipe sample set to TWITWI
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Corrosion failure
• TWI asked to determine the cause of failure in 30 inch pipe• Investigation approach:– Initial examination and photography– Measurement of wall thickness in damaged
region (AUT)– Sectioning of region close to split– Chemical analysis, hardness testing,
fractographic examination, Metallographic examination, mechanical testing– Engineering assessment
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Corrosion failure
Nominal thickness 9.8 mmMinimum measured thickness 3.2 mmRupture tear
AUT thickness mapping TAUT thickness mapping T--scan modescan mode
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Corrosion failure
• Metallurgical investigation determined corrosion result of coal tar paint break down • Resulting exposed area too great for
cathodic protection system• Failure initiation at several sites which
propagated to coalesce to a unstable single split
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Corrosion failure
• Questions which remained were:– Was the pipe originally code compliant– Was the flaw fit-for-service
• A code and a fitness-for-service assessment were conducted• The code evaluation showed that the
pipeline was compliant with ASME B31.4 and not compliant with ASME B31.3
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Corrosion failure
• Burst pressure was evaluated using BS7910 appendix G and B31.G• Material properties taken from from the
failed pipe e.g. yield stress• BS 7910 procedure based on UTS properties• B31.G procedure based on yield properties
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Corrosion failure
Failu
re p
ress
ure
(ps
i)
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
AssessmentThickness (mm)
3.2 3.7
BS 7910B31.G
Minimum measured thickness
Averaged measured thickness
•• Flaw could have failed Flaw could have failed within operating bandwithin operating band
•• High probability pipe High probability pipe failed due to pressure failed due to pressure rise within operating rise within operating rangerange
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Factors affecting structural integrity
MATERIALPROPERTIES
FLAWS,GEOMETRY STRESSES
Session 2/22
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Assessment based on API RP579 Section 3 - Lessons learnt from Historical Equipment Failures
Copyright 2005, TWI Ltd
Copyright © 2005, TWI Ltd World Centre for Materials Joining TechnologyWorld Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Lessons to be learnt from industrial failures
• Welds, including repairs and attachments• Flaws• Sub-critical crack growth• Fracture toughness• Temperature• Residual stresses• Environment• Inspection